apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@lyra.org>
Subject APR "charter" (was: El-Kabong -- HTML Parser)
Date Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:26:26 GMT
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 02:38:35PM -0400, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 02:15:43PM -0400, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > > > Just to clarify, by "we" I meant the voting majority of the APR PMC
> > > > (aparently only with the approval of the board), not the whims of
> > > > the casual contributor. If this is indeed a paradigm shift, then I'm
> > > > suggesting that we reexamine the charter.

Only the voting majority. The Board gave us a wide charter. Thus, the apr,
apr-util, apr-iconv, and apr-serf projects *define* who we are, and what we
want to do. Each of these are under the rubric of "portable" libraries.
Either they engender portability (apr, apr-iconv), or they are inherently
portable (apr-util, apr-serf).

Thus, there is no paradigm shift or break at all. We have been defining who
we are over the past couple years.

What *is* broken is the text on the web page. It does not adequately express
what APR is all about.

> > > I'll tell you right now that I will strenuosly object to making APR the
> > > kitchen sink of Apache libraries.

I don't believe that we're being the kitchen sink. Again, we're only
consider libraries that are portable [causing or using]. We're also trying
to use, create, and maintain useful libraries.

[ part of the question that Dirk has been raising is the "useful" part; I
  maintain that the question cannot be answered without the code being
  available ]

> > > We are a portability project, which is
> > > all the library was when I wrote it, and all I wish the project to be.  If

That's what *you* wanted Ryan. Tough luck, but there are more of us. And we
have wanted it to be more, and it *is* more.

> > > you want a library project, then create a new PMC please.  I don't believe
> > > that you can create such a charter that is well defined enough to be
> > > useful.

The charter from the Board has been quite adequate, and we have defined
ourselves within that scope.

> > I'm also saying that apr-util seems to have broken the charter, in a very

Which charter? You've fallen in the FUD that the APR project is only about
APR. It is about more than that, as I recently posted to the PMC list.
Specifically, the Board chartered us to do the following:

          WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests
	  of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to
          establish a Project Management Committee charged with the creation
	  and maintenance of open-source software related to the Apache
	  Portable Runtime (APR) products, for distribution at no charge
          to the public.

(from the December, 2000 meeting minutes)

> > subtle way. On the one hand, the types of things we have in there are
> > Incredibly Useful. However, it seems that the pieces are only useful for
> > very specific applications. El-Kabong is useful (although not immediately
> > necessary) in the same sense as apr-util. I'm just saying we can't have
> > it both ways.

Of course we can. Our charter allows us to define our scope. I see that as
focusing on "portable" libraries.


Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

View raw message